Affording college tuition not an impossible dream

I must take issue with the substance and the implications of Denis Horgan's column on college tuition ("Anxiety about college costs rising," Sept. 2).

Families already have an inaccurate view of the affordability and accessibility of college, and are not aware of the options available to them in choosing and paying for an appropriate college.

Unfocused and inaccurate diatribes like Mr. Horgan's column only increase the number of students who will walk away from a college education because they are convinced it is out of their reach.

Mr. Horgan has off-handedly dismissed 1,600 independent colleges and universities that are as diverse in their culture, their mission and their finances as the 2.9 million students they serve.

Yes, it is true that less than 5 percent of all private colleges and universities -- have a "sticker price" of more than $20,000. However, more than half the students at the institutions receive need-based aid that averages about $12,000 per student, much of it from the institution's own resources.

At the other end of the spectrum, a handful of private colleges charge no tuition at all. These "work colleges" underwrite education costs through endowments and gifts, while the students pay for their education by providing services to the institution and the community.

Between these two extremes lies a wide range of private education options to meet particular students' needs and interests: small liberal arts colleges, major research universities, church- and faith-related colleges, historically black institutions, women's colleges, schools dedicated to the performing and visual arts and others.

The levels of tuition at these institutions are just as diverse. Last year, twice as many private institutions had tuition and fees below $9,000 as had tuition and fees above $18,000.

For most students, even those prices are substantially reduced through financial aid.

Mr. Horgan also faults colleges for having a cavalier attitude toward the price they charge.

He is simply wrong.

In recent years, the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities has surveyed its 900 member institutions to determine the amount of tuition increases and to find out what is being done to control or reduce costs.

This year, a number of schools are holding tuition increases to no more than the rate of inflation, others are reducing tuition and many more are showing their lowest increases in a decade.

The cost-saving measures include cooperative ventures with other colleges, reducing the number of administrative positions, privatizing some college services and consolidating other services.

College leaders are genuinely concerned about cost as it affects their institutions' fiscal welfare and out of a desire to make their colleges as accessible and affordable as possible.

More than ever, colleges are opening up their budgeting process to scrutiny by and input from students and others with a vested interest in the colleges' financial decisions. And colleges are talking openly and candidly about tuition levels, the way tuition is set, and the resources that are available to families in paying for a college education.

For example, in 1997, Duke University opened its doors, its ledgers and its meetings to a senior editor at the Chronicle of Higher Education for an in-depth analysis of the factors affecting tuition.

Another example is the recent issue of Johns Hopkins University's alumni magazine, which devotes 16 pages to a candid discussion of cost, tuition and financial aid.

None of these issues are as simple as Mr. Horgan would suggest because colleges are only partly businesses.

They also are repositories of knowledge, sites of exploration, catalysts for personal growth, arenas of athletic prowess, venues for artistic endeavors and centers of human understanding.

A college education is an investment in the most valuable commodity anyone possesses: oneself.

David L. Warren

Washington

The writer is president of the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities.

Affirmative action improves the quality of medical service

U.S. medical schools accept and graduate only highly qualified, well-trained men and women. The rigorous evaluation of candidates for medical school admission takes into account a wide variety of criteria from grades and test scores, to community service, to geography, and thanks to affirmative action, to race and ethnicity as well.

This evaluation process is far more complex, thorough and effective than Robert Farmer would lead you to believe from his simplistic statement in the story "White student sues Md. medical school over admission policy" (Aug. 26).

But it seems the mere mention of race raises the hackles of affirmative action opponents. For those interested in facts, consider these: Most applicants to medical school, from whatever background, are turned away because the spots are limited. All those admitted merit admission by virtue of their past accomplishments and potential for becoming caring physicians.

And all must meet the same rigorous tests before they can graduate. More than 87 percent of minority students admitted to U.S. medical schools in 1990 graduated, a figure comparable to that for non-minorities.

Only by including considerations of race and ethnicity among admission criteria has the medical profession been able to narrow the horrendous diversity gap it inherited from past periods of overt discrimination.

As we become increasingly diverse as a nation, it is imperative that our physician work force reflect our racial cultural complexity. Doctors must look more like America.

With 21 percent of the U.S. population already composed of underrepresented minorities, we cannot allow our country to turn back the clock to the 1960s when only one percent of medical students were black.

Affirmative action in medical school admissions is an essential tool to keep the clock running forward.

The University of Maryland School of Medicine pursues sound, time-tested admissions policies, in keeping with those of medical schools throughout the country. Those policies provide opportunities for qualified underrepresented minorities students to serve the state of Maryland and the nation. And we all benefit from their service.

Dr. Jordan J. Cohen

Washington

The writer is president of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

Pre-first grade the right step for some pupils

Thank you for a fine article "Pre-first: a grade between" (Sept. 14). Our oldest daughter attended pre-first, our middle daughter moved directly to first grade and our son is enrolled in pre-first, all at St. James Academy.

In each case, the placement decisions were made in close consultation with teachers who observed our children in kindergarten.

In making our decisions, we quickly put aside any concern of our children being "labeled" and chose the educational path best suited for each of them. It has proven to be a wise decision as all three are doing well academically and, more importantly, enjoying their educational experiences.

Professor Beth Graue comments in the story that, "Research shows . . . these extra-year programs are not effective" and she calls pre-first "a theft of opportunity." I suggest that she and the rest of the education elite come off their ivory-towered campuses and take a close look at what is obviously working for so many children in the Baltimore area.

Theft of opportunity is occurring every day as school systems push too many children through school, only for them to receive diplomas they cannot read.

Stuart Entwistle

Heather Entwistle

Cockeysville

Comparing fatal lies, harmless ones

Those demanding President Clinton's scalp should pause to consider some historical perspective.

In 1964, President Johnson sent U.S. and South Vietnamese Navy vessels into the Gulf of Tonkin to violate North Vietnam's 12-mile limit and to shell offshore islands. The North Vietnamese retaliated by launching torpedoes at the U.S.S. Maddox, which had violated the 12-mile limit several hours earlier.

The following day, nervous radar operators aboard the U.S.S. Turner Joy misread blips on the radar screen, but the ship soon radioed that the reported attack had been a false alarm.

President Johnson then lied to American people by stating that both ships had been attacked, that both ships were at all times in international waters and that the United States had done nothing to provoke the attacks. He ordered a retaliatory air attack and asked Congress to pass a resolution supporting the U.S. air attack.

Johnson did not mention that he had ordered the drafting of this resolution months before the torpedo attack on the Maddox. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman J. William Fulbright noticed that the resolution authorized the president to defend South Vietnam from aggression. When questioned, Johnson lied to

Senator Fulbright by promising that American troops would not be sent to Vietnam. Fulbright repeated this lie on the Senate floor, and the resolution was passed with only two dissenting votes.

Throughout the 1964 election campaign, Johnson lied by repeating, "I seek no wider war."

Today, we know that Johnson did not lie because of a sincere but misguided belief in the need to fight this war, but because he feared that the Rush Limbaughs and Kenneth Starrs of his time would accuse him of being soft on communism.

More than 58,000 Americans and over three million Vietnamese, paid the ultimate price for Johnson's lies. Those of us (myself included) who entered the military did so not knowing whether we were fated for an end in some rice paddy in the Mekong Delta -- a death in the service of a lie.

By contrast, Mr. Clinton's extramartial dalliances have hurt himself (he will be remembered with the same contempt heretofore reserved for Warren Harding), his wife and his daugher, but no one else. His disgusting recreational pastimes were not brought to light by the outrage of millions hurt by his lies, but by an overzealous prosecutor, employing questionable and often illegal tactics and serving his political party and ideology but not his nation.

Alan C. Cohen

Randallstown As a regular listener of talk radio, I am thoroughly amused by the exasperation heard loud and clear, particularly on Rush Limbaugh's and Ron Smith's shows on WBAL.

I find it incredible that the "voice of reason" and America's self-proclaimed smartest talk show host cannot understand the dynamic of what is happening with the American public.

They began to blame the public for the lack of backlash against President Clinton, resulting from Starr's report. What these two fail to appreciate is that everything is relative.

For the last six years, I have listened to these two talk show hosts bash Mr. Clinton at every opportunity.

The bashing was equally rigorous whether based in fact or conjecture. On more than one occasion, I heard suggestions that Clinton was involved in Vince Foster's death. Mr. Smith assured listeners that sex and the subsequent cover-up were only the "tip of the iceberg."

Now that the report has been released and deals exclusively with sex and the attendant cover-up, much of the American public has let out a collective yawn.

While ample grounds for impeachment are apparently found by those who wanted Mr. Clinton impeached six years ago, most Americans appear to want Clinton to remain in office.

The constant drumbeat of criticism by Mr. Limbaugh and Mr. Smith has rendered the Starr report insignificant.

Like the boy who cried wolf, the talk show hosts do not seem to understand why the public is slow to respond now that there is a solid evidentiary basis for their clamor for Mr. Clinton's removal.

Had this relentless bashing not gone on for the last six years, the relations in the Starr report would have probably been sufficient that the resulting ground swell would have forced Clinton from office. The lack of such a reaction is solely due to the fact that the general public is numb from the relentless and outrageous allegations made over the last six years.

Gerald W. Soukup

Baltimore

Blacking out news to shield 4-year-old

I have had to impose a news blackout in my home, unless my 4-year-old is sound asleep.

The lurid testimony being quoted from the Starr report on my radio station was absolutely appalling.

There is no legal reason for this kind of detail to be included in Mr. Starr's report.

I am not excusing President Clinton's behavior, but two wrongs still don't make a right. Mr. Starr has shown himself to be no better than a peeping Tom, who having gotten a good look in the bedroom, wants the rest of the country to gather in the bushes with him and look, too.

Laura Polk Siegel

Baltimore

Can't trust Clinton as leader of nation

Kenneth Starr was meticulous in laying out evidence from his investigation, and the testimony of the witnesses amply supports the charges he sets forth that might be grounds for impeachment.

Congressional response to the report must not be based on how many citizens believe President Clinton is doing a good job running the country, but it must be based on the laws that have been broken by the president.

If any citizen, because of to his or her position of privilege, is allowed to circumvent the judicial system, the very foundation of our government is at risk. No apology can change the constitutional promise of equal justice under the law.

The president must be punished, as I would be if I had lied under oath, obstructed justice or tampered with witnesses. He must lose his job, either by resignation or impeachment. If the House of Representatives does not impeach, or the president does not resign, Mr. Starr must indict him.

This man was entrusted with the presidency of the most powerful nation on earth. The citizens of the United States and the world must be able to trust his veracity. Clearly, they cannot.

Jennifer Hawkins

Baltimore

Not impeached, but disbarred?

I recently read that [an organization has filed a formal complaint] with the Arkansas Bar Counsel against President Clinton ("Conservative group seeks to disbar Clinton," Sept. 16).

Congress may or may not impeach President Clinton and remove him from office.

Wouldn't it be strange, if not ironic, that the moral and ethical requirements to be a lawyer are more stringent than those to be president of the United States?

Donald B. W. Messenger

Baltimore

Some, but not much, scoundrel in leaders

We Americans oppose evil and take pride in fighting the enemies of freedom. But as a democratic republic that treasures its separation of church and state, we seem to have lots of difficulty determinining what's tolerable and what isn't. We admire morality, honesty and integrity, but we don't like self-righteousness, and we don't trust piety.

We snickered at President Carter's confession that he had "lust in his heart". We want a little "scoundrel" in our leaders; well now we've got it. And we have no idea how to handle it.

Most Americans wanted to avoid the dilemma, but Kenneth Starr kept snooping; the media fanned the fires despite poll results that we'd had enough; Clinton lied about it again and again; and the moralists condemn all while the apologists forgive all.

Daniel J. Pearl

Owings Mills Judging by the sample of letters to the editor that you publish and by the views expressed by your artistically talented but sometimes very nasty cartoonists, The Sun and its readership continues to support President Clinton and Hillary Clinton.

How disheartening it is to realize that more of us are not terribly offended at being manipulated by these actors on TV who are looking down their noses and sneering at our gullibility through whatever pious, tearful, lip biting, overly caring emotions suit their purposes of the moment.

Paul Thomas

Cooksville

State police don't stop motorists by race

The article about an increase in traffic enforcement efforts by the Baltimore City Police Department reported that the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit against the Maryland State Police "after a two-year study found that three of four motorists stopped along Interstate 95 were black" ("Police union lauds plan to cut crime," Sept. 19).

This statement is completely inaccurate and was not the allegation of the ACLU suit. I am deeply troubled that the reputation of this department continues to be trampled upon.

The Maryland State Police has not, does not, nor will it ever condone the use of race-based profiling. To stop and search someone simply because he or she is of a certain race is unlawful, unconstitutional and will not be tolerated by the Maryland State Police.

Statewide last year, troopers conducted 1,030 vehicle searches

during nearly 1 million traffic stops. Of those, 34.1 percent were African Americans and 58.6 percent were white.

Hispanics and other races represented 5.5 and 1.8 percent, respectively. Drugs or drug-related money were found in 31 percent of the searches.

The ACLU has narrowed its focus to the JFK Highway Barrack, which is one of 23 barracks in Maryland.

The JFK Barrack is made up of 46 troopers, 37 percent of whom are African American, including the commander. These troopers are responsible for patrolling the 48 miles of Interstate 95 from Baltimore City to Delaware. This route is known across the country as an East Coast drug-smuggling pipeline.

Last year, troopers at the JFK Barrack conducted 106 vehicle searches during the more than 24,000 traffic stops they made. Of those, 57.6 percent were African American and 37.7 percent were white. Hispanics represented 4.7 percent.

Drugs or drugs-related money were found in 41 percent of the vehicle searches, 10 percent higher than the statewide average. During the past three years, troopers at this barrack recovered ,, approximately $10 million worth of illegal drugs, $2 million in drug-related money and dozens of weapons.

In addition, on August 27, 1996, Trooper Michael Hughes was ambushed near his home by gang members whose leader had been pulled over for speeding on I-95 by his brother, David Hughes, also a state trooper.

David Hughes found a kilogram of cocaine in Gregory McCorkle's car and was scheduled to testify against him. In January 1998, McCorkle and other leaders of the drug gang that hired a hit man to shoot the trooper were sentenced to life in prison.

Sixteen other people pleaded guilty to participating in the attempted murder and several other charges.

In an effort to make clear who we are stopping on I-95, the JFK Barrack began keeping demographic data of all traffic stops on June 16, 1996. From that date through March 31, 1998, troopers stopped 32,727 whites. Of those, consent searches were requested of 81 drivers. Another 85 were searched based on probable cause, a positive K-9 scan or a frisk. Of those 166 people, 58 were arrested (35 percent).

During that same period, troopers at JFK stopped 14,048 African Americans. Of those, searches were requested of 89 drivers. Another 98 were searched based on probable cause, a positive K-9 scan or a frisk. Of those 187 people, 83 were arrested (44 percent).

Obviously, the claim that three out of four motorists stopped by troopers at the JFK Barrack are black is false. Our troopers know that when they make a traffic stop, race cannot be a factor. When a trooper asks for consent to search a vehicle, he or she must be able to articulate what led them to ask for consent.

They must consider each case separately and build reasonable, articulate suspicion to justify their actions. There are many factors that can be used to do this, but race cannot be a factor.

The men and women of the Maryland State Police will continue their efforts to stop the flow of drugs into Maryland.

They will do so within our regulations, the laws of Maryland and the Constitution of the United States.

David B. Mitchell

Pikesville

The writer is superintendent of the Maryland State Police.

Pub Date: 9/26/98